HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2001 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
-
,
MEETING DATE I/ /7- c /
1=1 COUNCIL
Cl PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
0 PARK COM1VIISSIO
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
N
ID OTHER -
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)ADDRESS
NAME OR NUMBER
NAME (please print)
1. 1j iilf(l
' ° /1:4/11_-,, k, i 3(.>,7) , il- k l,. • 11,
95- ,—V72 // cl)
2. ( ( j // 174 i / -/ 4) 1C )1
l i
_L--)t V14' ' , . c() (A
14cI 1
(_(.5T,L. _ 9 7)‘
. 3 .t7, /-1 I C ii ,=- ,\--.
4. Zco,i k / ' ' 7 41
I
t k 7)O &aivl d." 47. A
.-i_ ,
, --- , c/.5",,2 - 7 3 -? c
, ,
6. Li l'''' (' ''' j,);_, , ( , ,-6-,....(( (c..,,:,- A
7. -..`C-' P L. Q._ Z c-vy ),(s.et.LN
(
,)_6.. ? L C,7.,..2.LL i^-+? V1*-&,.-4 / 4 .r-
z
8. ----Itr -`1 C)' '' ' - C.'
, ' ,„, /H.-- I,- -----
.__ ) , 7/ (.____, ,.. ' -- -L-t 7 I
Li,., ;I-
' --r,-,.- -. ';I:''''('''''> % 'r ("1 , -14',11- --). - y7/ - (. / q..5
10 i n(
9. - 1 .,.(". :I )(1„';(ra-r-- sl,IJ-,- ,_.- C__ t , 9 5,_
- ...- - ' --,_
11. i .._ \-- - ; 17,. ...1,'\•,. ,,L i'..,..-,-,,
12. On Lii-ts k„...QALICAZ1 IS ), (:) Lo.-,i• L,11c . Ut\i':'
cit 5 Li -7;,' C 7,7 7
A ,( 7-
i,2 0,./ c_r-yu,,14Lk 1. t'L- -
) ' - — X V‘ Y'Z 7
14.
15.
X:\APPS\WPVVIN60\WPDOCS\FORMS\PUBLIC.AIT
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
•
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Acting Chair Daniel Kluth, Commissioner Janice Berg,Alternate Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth
and Maureen Bellows. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator
Mike Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger,Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy
Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representatives Jay Nygard and
Bob Sansevere were present.
Acting Chair Kluth called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#1) #2646 JOHN ADAMS AND CLEA ALTMAN, 4245 CHIPPEWA LANE,
VARIANCE,6:31 p.m.—6:35 p.m.
John Adams and Clea Altman, Applicants, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to construct a new
residence on the lot. The existing residence that was constructed in the early 1960s and an
accessory building were removed per a demolition permit issued in June, 2000. The lot is
approximately 4.89 acres, with the minimum lot area requirement being 5 acres. A lot area
variance is required to construct a new residence.
Bottenberg stated this is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards,
with no additional land being available to meet the zoning standards.
City Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance.
Adams commented they are in the process of combining two families and are in need of a
larger house to accommodate more children.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Bellows inquired whether the house was on the property at the time the lot was purchased.
Adams stated he bought the property after the house had been removed.
Bellows inquired whether he knew at the time of purchase that this area was zoned five acres.
Adams stated he was aware of that fact,but figured since it was close to five acres, it would not be a
problem to obtain a variance.
Mabusth moved, Bellows seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2646,
John Adams and Clea Altman,4245 Chippewa Lane, granting of a lot area variance in
order to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 1.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2) #2647 ROBERT ZAUN, 1337 REST POINT CIRCLE,VARIANCE, 6:35—6:39 p.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Zaun, Applicants, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct an attached two stall garage
consisting of 21' by 33'with a second story. The first floor will be a two-stall garage, with the
second floor being additional living space. The existing garage will also be turned into living
space. Bottenberg noted floor plans for the second floor living space over the garage were not
submitted by the Applicants.
Bottenberg stated the existing residence was built in the 1960s, with no additions having been
constructed to the residence. The new garage location will allow the existing floor plan and
front entry to remain.
Bottenberg indicated the subject property is surrounded on three sides by road. Bottenberg
noted structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application.
City Staff recommends approval of the variance.
Zaun commented he would like to construct a two-stall garage since he has two cars. Zaun
stated this location fits in best with the existing structure and will allow him to increase their
living space.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Bellows commented that 21 feet is small for a garage, and suggested the Applicant may want to
consider constructing a slightly larger garage.
Zaun indicated he had reduced it somewhat to lessen the impact to the side yard setback.
Bellows suggested the Applicant consider increasing the width of the garage towards the side
of the house. Bellows stated she would not be in favor of encroaching further into the side yard
setback.
Zaun stated he is somewhat restricted from making the garage bigger since it would obstruct the
view from a window on that side of the house. Zaun stated he will consider it.
Berg moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2647, Robert Zaun,
1337 Rest Point Circle, granting of a side yard adjacent to street setback to allow for the
construction of a two-stall garage with a second story. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#3) #2658 TIM AND AMY LANDON, 1360 VINE PLACE, VARIANCES,
6:40 p.m.—6:43 p.m.
Tim and Amy Landon, Applicants, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was
built in 1950 was removed per a demolition permit issued in December of 2000. A lot width
variance is required due to the lot being 90 feet wide where 140 feet is required in the LR-1B
zoning district.
Bottenberg stated an accessory building variance is required because Orono's Zoning Code does
not permit an accessory building on property without a principal structure. Currently there is an
existing accessory building located on the property without a primary structure. A variance was
granted in 1976 to allow the oversized accessory building to be constructed on the property. The
Applicants plan to construct a new residence on the property with the accessory building remaining.
City Staff recommends approval of the variances.
Landon stated he would like to keep the accessory structure since it is in excellent shape. Landon
stated his hardcover is below the maximum allowed, with the house being located far enough from
the lakeshore. Landon stated to his knowledge his neighbors are not opposed to this project.
Bellows commented the Applicant's lot width of 90 feet appears to be consistent with some of the
other lots in the area.
Landon stated the lot widths in this area range between 50 feet to 100 feet.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mabusth moved, Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2658,
Tim and Amy Landon, 1360 Vine Place, granting of a lot width variance and an
accessory building variance to allow construction of a new residence on the lot,
with the understanding the new residence will meet all setback, hardcover and
structural coverage requirements for the property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#4) #2631 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE,
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL (P.R.U.D),6:44 p.m.—6:54 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated this is the fifth draft of the zoning code amendment, with the Planning Commission
having reviewed various drafts of the amendment at their meetings since October. Gaffron stated
the latest draft has incorporated the recommendations suggested by the Planning Commission at
their January 5th work session.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2631 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Gaffron stated the most recent revisions include prohibition of RPUD in the Shoreland District,
with clarification of the extent of the District and an editorial note regarding potential applicability
of RPUD in certain Shoreland areas. Gaffron noted the members of the Planning Commission were
not unanimous in their decision regarding the prohibition, with some members feeling this issue
should be looked at more closely in the future.
Gaffron stated another significant issue the Planning Commission has discussed at length is
regarding the height a particular structure should be within this district, with a height limitation
of 2 ''A stores or 30 feet for residentially guided properties, three story maximum for residential
building in commercially guided areas being incorporated into the amendment.
Gaffron stated there have been significant revisions to the park dedication requirements. The
language requiring 8 percent of gross lot area to be dedicated to private recreational area has
been increased to 10 percent, and is to be considered a separate dedication in addition to the
standard public park dedication requirement. Gaffron stated the RPUD district would be subject to the
park dedication requirements, with some possible revisions suggested to allow the City Council to
waive the park dedication for City-assisted projects and/or projects with a public purpose; and to cap
the park fee at
8 percent of land fair market value for higher density residential projects where the park fee per
unit may greatly exceed 8 percent of the per unit land value.
Gaffron stated the amendment has been revised to include revisions to the minimum landscape
value rates, with higher landscape standards having been incorporated into the amendment.
Language has also been added clarifying that parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape
zones and that a development agreement and financial guarantee must to be on file with the City.
Gaffron stated revised language regarding substantial compliance to omit the 5 percent and
10 percent revision allowances has been added to the amendment, as well as revised language
regarding major amendments to omit the 5 percent and 10 percent allowances.
Gaffron stated the City is able to add further amendments if the Planning Commission deems that
appropriate. Gaffron stated in his opinion the fifth draft of the amendment has been fine-tuned
to a level where the Planning Commission should feel comfortable approving it.
Kluth commented at the most recent work session Commissioners Hawn, Lindquist, and himself
were present where this amendment was discussed. Kluth noted the revisions discussed at the
workshop have been incorporated into the amendment. Kluth inquired whether the Planning
Commission should look at amending the park dedication code now or in the future.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could adopt the amendment before them tonight with the
recommendation that the park dedication section of the ordinance be looked at in the future. Gaffron
noted that revising the park dedication ordinances would require a separate public hearing.
Kluth stated in his view giving the City Council the option of waiving the park dedication fee on
financially assisted projects is an important feature to the amendment.
There were no public comments regarding this matter.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2631 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Mabusth inquired when this would go before the City Council if approved tonight by the
Planning Commission.
Gaffron stated it would probably go before the Council at their first meeting in February.
Mabusth inquired whether the senior housing project proposed by Ambar would be subject to this
amendment.
Gaffron stated that project would be, noting the developer has been working with the City on this
project and has been using the draft amendment as a planning guide.
Kluth moved, Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application#2631, Zoning
Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Proposed Residential (P.R.U.D.).
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#5) #2638 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE,
SECTION 10.45, 6:55 p.m.— 7:03 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated this zoning code amendment is to revise the B-6 Highway Commercial District
standards to incorporate more detailed landscaping and architectural standards and to revise the
B-6 list of allowed uses to include clinics.
Gaffron stated the landscaping and architectural standards being incorporated into the RPUD
District are equally applicable to the B-6 Commercial District.
Gaffron stated another matter included in the zoning code amendment is the addition of clinics
to the list of B-6 permitted uses. Staff feels it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care
on an outpatient basis only"to the list of permitted uses in the B-6 District. This would more
correctly accommodate the medical office building proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in
keeping with the City's intent for the B-6 District. Gaffron stated this change would require a
separate public hearing, which could be held at the City Council level if the Planning Commission
so recommended, or a public hearing could be held at the next Planning Commission meeting
relating to this item.
Gaffron recommended approval of the zoning code amendment.
Kluth stated since the addition of clinic use would need to be considered separately,the Planning
Commission will focus primarily on the revisions to the landscaping and architectural standards
being proposed in this amendment.
Kluth inquired whether proper notice has been given on this item.
Gaffron stated proper notice has been given relating to this item at all of the Planning Commission
meetings where this item has been discussed.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Mabusth inquired whether there were any other zoning districts that should be reviewed in order
to upgrade the landscaping requirements in addition to the B-6 district.
Gaffron stated all the zoning districts could be reviewed in that regard. Gaffron stated that is an
issue that Staff should probably look at in the near future.
Bellows suggested that the City require some bigger tree sizes.
Kluth stated it was his understanding these standards are similar to the surrounding communities.
Gaffron stated one reason why cities typically require smaller tree sizes is due to the fact that
smaller trees and bushes tend to thrive sooner than larger ones.
Bellows commented that some communities do a mix of both large and small trees based on a
certain percentage, and that perhaps the City may want to consider looking at that issue in the
future.
Gaffron stated Staff will review this amendment periodically to see whether any revisions
are appropriate.
Kluth moved, Berg seconded,to recommend Approval of Application #2638, Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.45 (B-6 District), with the
understanding the revision to the B-6 list of allowed uses to include clinics will be acted on
separately following a separate public hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#6) #2639 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE,
SECTION 10.52, 7:04 p.m.— 7:08 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated this zoning code amendment is necessary to add the RPUD to the list of
available zoning districts under Section 10.52. Section 10.52 is the section relating to Special
Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area. Gaffron stated the study area
carries through with the City's 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan, with Subdivision 5 relating to
available zoning districts that could be developed within the Highway 12 corridor. Gaffron stated
the Highway 12 corridor study area allows rezoning to the B-6 Highway Commercial District;the
PRD, Planned Residential Development;the R-1A, One Family Residential District; R-1B, One
Family Residential District; and M-6, Multiple Family Planning Residential District.
Gaffron recommended adding the RPUD District to the list of available zoning districts.
Bellows inquired whether this area backs up to the new Highway 12 corridor.
Gaffron stated the Highway 12 corridor includes all of Orono's Industrial Park and includes
properties that abut Highway 12 along the north side of the highway from Brown Road to Old
Crystal Bay Road. and includes some other individual properties.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Bellows inquired whether it goes to the railroad tracks.
Gaffron stated the new Comprehensive Plan identifies an area east of Willow Drive between the
tracks and Watertown Road that has been guided for single family/higher density. Gaffron stated that
area could potentially be developed through the RPUD standards and could be included in the
Highway 12 corridor study area.
There were no public comments relating to this matter.
Kluth moved, Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2639, Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
(Item Nos. 7 through 11 follow Item 12)
(#12) #2651 STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS,INC., ON BEHALF OF ROBIN &
JEREMY BUPP, 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE, VARIANCES, 7:09 p.m.—8:09 p.m.
Jeremy Bupp, Property Owner, and Stephen Longman, Builder, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants were issued a building permit on June 20, 2000,to construct
a new house on this property. A temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued on
January 17, 2001,as the house is considered complete subject to a few conditions that still need to be
met before the final certificate of occupancy can be issued. Weinberger stated some grading
issues still need to be completed as well as installation of drain tile and excavation of the
drainage swale.
Weinberger stated at the time the building permit was approved,the site plan did meet all the
requirements of Orono's Ordinances and the State Building Code. A later review
of the site plan, which occurred after the City received some phone calls from the adjoining
property owners, discovered that the original site plan submitted by the surveyor was incorrect with
regard to the 75 foot lakeshore setback. A new survey was submitted depicting the correct shoreline,
with a small portion of the property being located within 75 feet of the lakeshore that was not
originally deducted from the buildable portion of the lot.
Weinberger stated this created a situation where the owners were required to omit certain items
of hardcover on the property to remain within the 25 percent requirement. The areas that do
reflect the changes to the site plan relate to a patio, which has not been constructed, and to the
driveway, which has been constructed to a minimal ten foot width. It was determined by City
Staff and the property owners that the ten foot width was the minimum width that could be
constructed and still be able to fully utilize the three-stall garage on the property.
Weinberger stated since the mistake on the survey was not found until after the house was almost
completed, it was difficult to make any revisions to the plan. The grading plan submitted by the
Applicant does address concerns raised by City Staff concerning the property, with drainage swales
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
being constructed on either side of the house to direct water around the house and gutters being
installed on the north side of the house to direct the water toward the lakeshore. Drainage has been a
concern with this application since the property was more fully developed than what had been in
the past and due to the close proximity to adjacent structures.
Weinberger indicated the Applicants are requesting a variance for the driveway. If the driveway
is expanded, it would result in hardcover beyond the 25 percent limit. Weinberger noted the
Applicants currently are at the 25 percent hardcover limit with the items that have been omitted.
The second item that was omitted is the patio, which is now depicted as a grassy area. The
Applicants are requesting a variance to construct the patio. Weinberger stated the original plan
had intended for there to be a full patio door with a walkout. At the present time there is no way to
access to the ground, with any type of access requiring a variance. Weinberger indicated there is
approximately a three to four foot drop from the patio door to the ground.
Weinberger stated the State Building Code does not permit a door to open out without a safe
landing. The City of Orono has required that the patio doors be permanently fixed so they cannot
be opened. Weinberger indicated the natural grade of the land has been altered to accommodate
a step-down patio in this area. Weinberger stated the grading that has been done in this area
was approved. Grading in excess of two and a half feet would be considered an encroachment on
the average setback. Being that it is a ground level patio,that area could be paved (with a
variance) without it being an encroachment into the setback.
Weinberger stated in order for a variance to be granted, a hardship inherent to the land must be
demonstrated. The property owners have stated that had they been aware of the hardcover
limitations in this area they would have been able to redesign the house to meet those standards,
and at this time are requesting a minimal patio and a little additional driveway space to enable
better maneuvering of a vehicle due.
Staff is making a recommendation of denial on this application since it is new construction and
the Planning Commission and City Council have been consistent in the past on adhering to the
25 percent limit. Staff does not feel a hardship has been demonstrated that is inherent to the land.
Weinberger stated the only possible hardship that could be considered would be the irregular
shape of the shoreline, which has caused more of the property to be considered within the 0-75'
setback area.
Bupp indicated he understands they are at 100 percent of their hardcover allowance at this time with
the present design of the house. Bupp stated as way of background,this property was essentially an
unused lot with a small cabin having been located on the lot. Bupp commented it is his opinion the
neighbors in the area adopted this land as a small park and are having trouble dealing with the
inconvenience or imposition of the construction of a new residence. Bupp stated the construction
has caused some distraction to the neighbors as well as some damage to a grassy area, which has
upset the neighbors, and which he has apologized for.
Bupp stated due to the neighbors' concerns, the construction of their residence has been very
carefully scrutinized. Bupp stated although their plans were approved by the City,they were
requested to resurvey the property a couple of times, which resulted in the finding that the
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
shoreline was incorrectly identified six months into construction or when the house was 95 percent
complete. Bupp stated that finding came as a complete surprise to them and puts them in the
position that they are presently in.
Bupp stated, number one,they have acted in good faith with the City and attempted to work with
the City in order to comply with the various requirements, such as reducing the size of the
driveway and the deck, regrading, and adding of gutters in an attempt to accommodate the requests
of the City. Bupp stated he received a document from the City which includes a summary of the
hardcover ordinance and how to calculate hardcover. Bupp stated nowhere within that document
is there reference to setback to the adjacent property.
Bupp stated the second point he would like to make is that the hardcover being requested tonight
is only .44 percent for the driveway and approximately 1 percent for the patio. Bupp stated
depicted on the approved site plan was the patio,the walkout, and the larger driveway. Bupp
stated currently they have patio doors that open to nowhere, which makes them unuseable at this
time without some type of stairway. Bupp stated that is their only access to the back yard, with their
house being designed to access the back yard via the patio doors.
Bupp commented in his view the irregular shape of the shoreline does have a negative impact on
the property. Bupp stated if the irregular shape of the shoreline is taken into consideration with the
property line,that results in the 75 foot setback for this area. Bupp stated the incorrectly identified
shoreline was a complete surprise to both the City and himself, and this error of omission should be
shared by the City and himself and should have been caught upfront during the planning process.
Bupp requested the Planning Commission take that omission into consideration when considering his
hardcover variance request. Bupp stated due to that omission,they have been placed into an
impossible situation and have attempted to accommodate the City's hardcover limits as best they can.
Longman stated he disagrees with City Staff that no hardship exists. Longman stated the fact the
house has been constructed with a patio door designed to access a patio should be considered a
hardship since they have acted in good faith through the application review process. Longman stated
the variance law is designed to handle this type of situation, and requested that the Planning
Commission take into consideration the irregular shape of the shoreline and the fact that the
75' setback was incorrectly marked and not discovered until the house was nearly completed.
Bupp stated had the shoreline been correctly identified upfront, they would have taken the necessary
steps to accommodate that. Bupp stated in his view they have done a good job of complying with
the City's regulations and have tried to respect the neighbors' opinions throughout this process.
Longman stated they are open to compromise and are not asking for much additional hardcover.
Gary Thompson, Attorney-at-Law, stated he is here on behalf of Joseph and Jane Clemons,noting
he has submitted letters to the City dated January 7`h and January 15, 2001.
Kluth indicated the Planning Commission does have the letter dated January 15 in their packet.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
Bupp requested a copy of the letter.
Thompson stated the amount of hardcover currently on the property is in dispute and has not been
verified by the City. Thompson stated the issues relating to hardcover and setbacks changed due
to the problem with the shoreline setback. Thompson stated the actual square footage of the house
is also in dispute, which also needs to be verified. Thompson indicated the Clemons were told the
actual lot area would be verified by the City Engineer, which has not been completed.
Thompson presented some pictures of the new residence to the Planning Commission.
Thompson stated there are a couple of items that have been added to the residence which are not
depicted on the original plans which impact hardcover on the property, such as a column supporting
a roof and the roof overhangs. Thompson commented the roof overhangs should be included in the
hardcover calculation when the City's ordinance calls for that to be included.
Thompson expressed concerns that a drainage plan has not been submitted to the City to solve
the drainage issues resulting from the construction. Thompson stated the neighbors have a number
of concerns relating to drainage in this area, which should be addressed.
Thompson stated the patio and the retaining walls will also require a setback variance, which has
not been requested by the property owner. Thompson stated in his opinion a hardship does not
exist and the lot has simply been overbuilt, with the City and neighbors not being responsible for
creating this situation. Thompson stated the neighbors are here tonight requesting the City take steps
to protect their properties from any issues resulting from this project.
Joe Clemons, 2690 Caroline Avenue, stated the certificate of survey makes no mention of a deck,
with the amount of allowable hardcover on this property being 5,625 square feet. Clemons stated
the property owner is at 5,621 square feet. Clemons stated in his view the driveway is equal to or
larger than what it was back in May and should be remeasured. Clemons stated in his view the
driveway exceeds the area depicted on the survey.
Clemons noted the retaining wall has shrunk from 80 feet to 45 feet, and questioned which number
was correct. Clemons indicated that Orono's Ordinances state that whenever a roof extends out
beyond one and a half foot,the additional overhang should be counted as hardcover and would
result between an additional 600 to 900 square feet in hardcover.
Clemons stated in his view there is not a hardship. Clemons stated the building official found several
inconsistencies on the footprint that existed during construction. Clemons indicated the deck had to be
removed and reconstructed because it was found to encroach three feet into the setback. Clemons
stated in addition to the shoreline being inaccurately measured,the survey does not include a large
cement planter or a pillar and roof located on the northwest side of the house. Clemons stated his
concerns regarding the hardcover relate to the drainage, noting the grade of the land has been
changed significantly.
Clemons stated in addition, his view of the lake is pretty much gone. Clemons requested the
variance request be denied.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
Thelma Pulver, 2691 Caroline Avenue, expressed drainage concerns that might result from this
project, noting she currently experiences water runoff from the two roads near her property.
Peggy Kadlec, 2726 Caroline Avenue, indicated she did submit a letter to the City expressing the
concerns of the neighborhood relating to this project. Kadlec stated at the time they constructed
their residence,they were required to comply with the City's regulations and setback laws, which
should also apply in this case.
Kadlec stated they are a tolerant neighborhood, but in her view the Applicant went ahead with his
construction knowing he will need a variance later on. Kadlec stated due to the construction, a
grassy area on their property as well as a 100 year old Oak tree has been damaged. Kadlec
expressed doubts that the actual house built is the same plan that is depicted on the original plans.
Kadlec requested the Planning Commission deny the variance request.
Weinberger stated the hardcover calculations have been verified, which indicate the Applicant is
currently over the 25 percent limit by four square feet. Discussions have been had with the
Applicant regarding where the four square feet could possibly be removed, with there being very
limited options.
Weinberger stated the first issue he would like to address relates to the measurement of the house,
which is actually three feet wider than what was originally depicted on the survey. Weinberger
stated there were two architectural features at the end of the house which were not depicted on the
survey and are considered in the hardcover. Weinberger stated the columns are depicted on the
newest survey and are also included in the hardcover calculation.
Weinberger stated the issue relating to the grading is valid, noting the area was filled in quite a
bit to bring the land back to the natural grade prior to the cabin. Weinberger stated there still is a
fair amount of fill that still needs to be regraded in the spring. Weinberger stated the survey does
show some corrected figures which the land will need to be regraded to. In addition to the
regrading,the property owner will also be installing a gutter system, drain tile, and improving the
drainage swales to direct the water runoff from the house down towards the lake. Weinberger stated
the house located at 2691 Caroline Avenue should not be impacted by any water runoff from this
project.
Weinberger indicated a temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued with the stipulation that
no final certificate of occupancy will be issued until the grading issues are adequately addressed
and done in compliance with City standards.
Bellows inquired whether anyone from the City has compared the approved drawings with the
residence that was actually constructed to see whether it complies.
Weinberger indicated the actual residence that has been constructed does have a few minor changes
to it that are not reflected on the original plans but is fairly consistent with the approved plans.
Bellows stated approved plans are supposed to be complied with and not changed.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
Weinberger stated the Applicant did receive approval from the City regarding the minor changes
that were done. Weinberger indicated the change relates to the garage.
Bellows inquired why the shoreline measurement was not verified and included on the original survey.
Bellows stated the shoreline setback is not a new requirement, and inquired whether the builder has
constructed other homes in Orono prior to this residence.
Longman stated he has.
Bellows stated the setback has to do with the lakeshore and has nothing to do with the neighbor's
property. Bellows commented in her view the hardship relating to the patio doors is really not a
hardship and could be changed to windows. Bellows stated she does not see a hardship inherent to
the land for this property.
Bellows inquired whether the roof overhangs have been considered in the hardcover.
Weinberger stated the hardcover numbers that have been approved deal with the footprint of the
house.
Bellows commented that the City may have been remiss with the roof.
Weinberger stated roof overhangs typically are not included in the hardcover calculations. The
building inspector has indicated that unless the roof line is used for a covered walkway or patio,
it typically is not included in the hardcover calculations.
Bellows expressed concern that these issues were brought to light back in September and that
perhaps steps could have been taken at that time to limit the amount of hardcover on the property.
Bellows indicated she is not in favor of granting a hardcover variance on this property.
Berg inquired how many surveys for this property the City has.
Weinberger stated there are four or five in the file.
Berg inquired why there needed to be so many surveys done on this property.
Weinberger stated the City would request a new survey whenever they felt something was not in
compliance with the plans. Weinberger stated the encroachment of the deck was six inches and
has been relocated out of the setback.
Mabusth inquired whether anything was done regarding the roof overhangs.
Weinberger stated the roof overhangs were depicted on the approved drawings.
Kluth commented he is not in favor of granting a hardcover variance for this property since the
property owner has built right up to the maximum allowed, leaving no margin for error. Kluth
indicated the Planning Commission and City Council has been fairly consistent in requiring the
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
25 percent hardcover limit be complied with on new construction. Kluth stated in his opinion he
does not see a hardship inherent to the land.
Kluth moved,Berg seconded,to recommend denial of Application#2651, Stephen
Longman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue,
and not grant a hardcover variance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
7:30 p.m.
(#7) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION,PUBLIC HEARING,8:05 p.m.—8:29 p.m.
Charles Van Eeckhout,Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission has looked at various revisions of this basic concept
plan a number of times, with the latest revision showing a four lot development. Weinberger stated
this area is located within the two acre zoning district. This is a 20 acre site, with 14.1 acres being
dry buildable.
The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review the new four lot
concept. This matter was also reviewed by the Long Lake Planning Commission due to some road
access issues that need to be resolved. Weinberger stated one of the main issues with this
development relate to access to the various lots. North of the site is the City of Long Lake and
Apple Glen Road, which is a private road. The Long Lake Planning Commission met on
January 9th and tabled this request to consider access due to some issues relating to notification of
the neighbors and discussions with Long Lake's City Attorney. The application before the Long Lake
Planning Commission depicted seven lots rather than the four lots now before the Planning Comission
tonight.
Weinberger stated what the Applicant is now proposing is a four lot development with access
back to Brown Road, which was originally considered with a cul-de-sac and a five lot plan. The
revised concept plan does meet a couple of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission
early on by reducing the number of lots to four. The Applicant is now proposing two lots at the
north end along with three lots to the south, which would also include the existing house which is
owned by the Applicant.
Weinberger stated this plan is again at the concept plan stage, with the Applicant looking for some
direction and some type of recommendation to move this matter before the City Council for
consideration of preliminary plat. Weinberger stated the two main issues that have held this
application up were a technical evaluation review of the actual wetland boundaries on the property,
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
which has been resolved this past November, 2000, and access into the property. Weinberger stated
the main obstacle to gaining access to this property is the fact that the property in which the proposed
road would be located is owned by John Dunn and not the Applicant. The Applicant has had a
driveway easement over that area for perhaps the past 40 years,which has provided access to one 20
acre site.
The City Attorney has reviewed the easement document, and it is his opinion that a driveway
access did not imply that a road could be constructed in the easement to service additional lots.
Currently the driveway services two lots in this area. At the time a third driveway is added to this
access,the road would need to be upgraded to City standards.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on
whether they feel this is a good concept plan and should proceed forward with access negotiations
with the property owner to the north. Weinberger stated this proposed plan does address many of the
concerns the Planning Commission and City Council have had with the other prior proposals.
Van Eeckhout indicated this is the plan of record before the City, which was approved by the City
Council at its November 11`}'meeting, with the message that if Long Lake approves the access,the
City of Orono would approve this plan. Van Eeckhout stated at the December 18th meeting the City
Council reversed itself and voted 5 to 0 to prepare a resolution of denial due to issues relating to
access off of Apple Glen Road.
Van Eeckhout stated another plan he had proposed calling for seven lots was denied due to the
small lot sizes, which has resulted in a number of different revisions in the plan. Van Eeckhout
noted the two main issues relating to this development have primarily focused on access and
the amount of wetlands on the property.
Van Eeckhout stated he does have legal access off of Apple Glen Road according to the Attorney
General's Office, but due to the concerns expressed by the citizens of Long Lake, he is attempting
to gain access to this development off of Brown Road. Van Eeckhout noted the Long Lake Planning
Commission recently tabled his application. Van Eeckhout indicated he would prefer access off of
Brown Road rather than have access disputed by the citizens of Long Lake.
Van Eeckhout stated in an effort to move forward, he has contacted John Dunn, who indicated he
would be agreeable to submit to binding arbitration. Eeckhout indicated he has made three offers
to Dunn in the past, who has returned all three offers unsigned. Eeckhout stated he has not received
any offer back from Dunn regarding access. Eeckhout stated he would like to pursue binding
arbitration on the issue of access.
Van Eeckhout stated he is looking for guidance on whether the layout before the Planning
Commission is acceptable. Van Eeckhout stated this plan is predicated on access off of Brown Road.
Mabutsh inquired whether this development would be hooked up to City sewer.
Van Eeckhout stated it has been recommended that this property be hooked up to City sewer due
to the sensitive environment issues that exist, and that there is the capacity to be hooked up to the
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
sewer line. Van Eeckhout indicated this area is located in the proposed MUSA area.
Bellows asked if her understanding was correct that the Applicant currently has a driveway
easement over a piece of property to serve his home located on 20 acres.
Van Eeckhout stated he does.
Bellows inquired whether that easement would run with his title.
Van Eeckhout stated it would.
Bellows commented that by definition a driveway in Orono can only service two residences.
Gaffron stated once a driveway reaches the level of providing access to three residences, it must
be upgraded to a city road.
Bellows inquired how a private property owner can be forced into arbitration in order to gain
access over his property.
Van Eeckhout stated he is not able to do that unless the property owner agrees to it.
Bellows commented she misunderstood the Applicant.
Van Eeckhout stated John Dunn did indicate to him that he would be willing to submit to
arbitration in a phone call.
Mr. Dunn's son was present and indicated his father John is in Florida at the present time, but that it is
his understanding that his father has not agreed to submit to arbitration.
Bellows indicated the question of access is still unresolved at this time.
Van Eeckhout stated approval would have to be subject to access.
Kluth commented he is somewhat confused on what plan the Planning Commission is to look at.
Van Eeckhout stated the proposal before the Planning Commission is the four lot development,
and that he is looking for guidance on whether the Planning Commission would be agreeable to
this type of development.
Kluth indicated the Planning Commission is an advisory body only.
Bob Sansevere, City Council Representative, stated he would prefer not to see this application
again until the issue of access has been resolved, which has been communicated to the Applicant.
Sansevere stated it is his position approval should not be given until access is resolved.
Berg indicated she would like to see the access issue resolved as well.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
Van Eeckhout stated he would like to get some guidance from the Planning Commission on his
plan and that he is simply following the required procedure.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission has given the Applicant guidance on having smaller
lot sizes and the need to resolve the access issue. Kluth stated until the access issue is resolved,
the Planning Commission is really unable to give a recommendation one way or another on the
proposal.
Van Eeckhout stated he does have legal access off of Apple Glen Road but he is attempting to
provide access off of Brown Road due to the concerns expressed by the residents of Long Lake.
Berg stated once access has been resolved, she would be willing to review the plan, but at this
point in time, she cannot approve any plan without knowing how the development will be
accessed.
Bellows commented in her view this cannot be considered a proper public hearing since the
Planning Commission was not supplied with the proper documentation on the plan being discussed
by the Applicant tonight.
Van Eeckhout reiterated he is merely looking for some guidance from the Planning Commission at
this point.
Bellows stated the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to get the access issue resolved
prior to bringing this application before the Planning Commission or City Council.
The Planning Commission took no action on this application.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED
8:00 p.m.
(#8) #2640/2641 ORONO AMBER,LLC,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, P.U.D./
SUBDIVISION/REZONING/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW,8:30 p.m.—9:17 p.m.
Frank Dunbar, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting general concept approval for a two lot plat of a
6.7 acre property under the PUD ordinance. The Applicant is proposing a rezoning of the two
properties from B-1, Retail Sales Business District, to B-6/PUD and RPUD/PUD for multi-family
residential use of the proposed east parcel. The intended use of the properties are a three-story
62 unit senior housing project and a 23,000 square foot office building.
Weinberger stated the proposed residential use of the property would require a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment as the property is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2640/2641 Orono Amber, Continued)
or the proposed new Comprehensive Plan.
Weinberger indicated the subject parcel was platted as Outlot F. The parcel being immediately to
the south of the Sugarwoods residential development. It was intended at the time this property
was developed that it would need to be replatted to a buildable lot status.
The City of Orono has been looking for a development that would be compatible with the
surrounding properties,the residential to the north and commercial uses to the south.
The Applicant is proposing to rezone the property from B-1 to B-6 and RPUD. The rezoning would be
a down-zoning of the property,with the lot containing the senior housing building being rezoned to
the RPUD District, and the property to the west being rezoned to B-6, which would allow general
office type uses.
Weinberger stated the senior building is located with the majority of the building towards the
southern portion of the lot. The building is a three story building which will be platted as
separate condominiums and owned by a non-profit organization. The portion of the building
located closest to the residential area will be a two-story structure. The intent of the RPUD
District is to provide housing to meet lifecycle and affordable and moderate cost housing needs.
With this type of housing, it may require the buildings to exceed the 30 feet maximum height
standard that applies to single family residential homes and office buildings.
Weinberger stated the proposed office building would consist of two stories with approximately
23,000 square feet of gross floor space. Also being proposed under the building is a 21 stall
underground parking area. The building is designed to step down from a two-story structure to
one story immediately adjacent to the Sugarwoods neighborhood.
Weinberger indicated the general concept approval that is being requested this evening is
required as part of the Highway 12 PUD and the rezoning. General concept approval is similar
to preliminary plat approval. The City will not approve the preliminary plat until sometime later in the
application process because the developer of this particular development is seeking financial
assistance from the City,with the TIF revenues being utilized to help offset some of the costs
of development, landscaping, roadways,trails,and to help keep the costs affordable.
Weinberger stated the primary change between this plan and the original plan consists of a trail
connection that would be made through the property eventually connecting out to the east side.
The trail connection is important because of the type of use within the building. Weinberger noted
a City trail also exists in this area located north and south along Brown Road, with the proposed
trail ultimately connecting to the regional trail system.
Weinberger stated Lot 1 consists of 2.7 acres, which is designated for the office building, and
Lot 2 consists of 4 acres designated for the senior housing facility.
Weinberger stated if the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the general
concept, Staff would prepare a resolution defining all the necessary requirements that would need
to be met by the developer prior to final approval.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2640/2641 Orono Amber, Continued)
Weinberger stated one concern regarding this development involves the intersection of
Highway 12 and Brown Road. The City has contacted Mn/DOT and has requested that this
intersection be provided with a semaphore, which in Staffs view is an important element to this
particular type of housing development.
Weinberger stated the Applicant has not yet submitted a detailed landscape plan for this
development in light of the fact that the RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the
City. The Applicant is proposing a number of green spaces between the parking area and the
building along with a minimum six foot fence along the rear property line, which would stop
headlights, block the view of the parking lot as well as providing a minimal sound barrier in this
area. The Applicant would be required to screen the fence from the residential area to limit its
visibility.
Weinberger stated the drainage from the parking lots will be piped into a Mn/DOT stormwater
management pond located in the corner. Weinberger stated the adjacent property owner has
expressed concerns regarding the parking lot area and snow removal, which will need to be
further addressed.
City Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan as proposed.
Dunbar indicated he is willing to continue working with City Staff in an effort to address the
unresolved issues. Dunbar stated he is available for questions regarding this project.
Karl Berg, 2112 Sugarwood Drive, expressed concerns relating to drainage, noise, and
landscaping. Berg stated he would like the Sugarwood neighborhood to be more involved with
this project.
A resident of Sugarwood inquired whether allowing a three-story structure in this area would be
setting a precedent for the rest of Orono.
Bellows stated the City has zoned various parts of the City for specific uses, with this area being
rezoned to accommodate multi-family housing. Bellows stated the City will not be allowing
three-story structures in all parts of the City.
Sansevere commented that the developer on this project has been very cooperative with the
neighbors.
Dunbar indicated he has done a number of similar type projects throughout Minnesota.
Jacqueline Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, inquired whether the office building could be pushed
further south.
Dunbar stated they have relocated the office building further south somewhat from the original
plans in order to save a number of the trees in the area, but the building cannot be moved any
further south due to grading issues.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2640/2641 Orono Amber, Continued)
Weinberger indicated there will be a 75 foot setback from the beginning of the adjoining property's
back yard.
Dunbar indicated he would be willing to sit down with any interested resident and discuss this project
in more detail.
There were no further public comments regarding this application.
Mabusth inquired whether this application will appear before the Planning Commission again once the
RPUD Ordinance has been adopted.
Weinberger stated it will be coming back before the Planning Commission.
Bellows inquired whether this is considered as one project or two, noting that there are two separate
lots being platted with this application.
Dunbar stated there eventually will be two separate owners of these parcels but that the two projects
need to be constructed simultaneously in order to make the development work financially.
Mabusth inquired what the total hardcover will be for this project.
Weinberger stated he does not have the exact figures at this time, but that the developer is limited
to 30 percent hardcover for the entire lot. Weinberger indicated the 15 percent structure limit does
not apply in this case because the lot exceeds two acres.
Kluth moved, Bellows seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2640/2641,
Orono Amber,LLC,2060 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of general concept approval for a
two lot plat of a 6.7 acre property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:17 p.m.—9:32 p.m.
(#9) #2648 PETER AND NICOLE THOMAS, 1385 ORONO LANE,VARIANCES,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,9:32 p.m.—9:38 p.m.
Peter Thomas, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are seeking approval to rebuild, build up, repair several retaining
walls and construct steps on the property. The residence was built in 1929,and is in excellent
condition. The property is located on a bluff and has significant elevation changes. Due to the age
of the property, there are several areas that need to be repaired, replaced, and added to for erosion
control, soil retention, and safety.
The Applicants are proposing ten different projects on the property in relation to the repair of the
retaining walls and steps. Bottenberg indicated some of the improvements are located within the
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2648 Peter and Nicole Thomas, Continued)
75-250' setback area, which will add 85 square feet of hardcover for a total of 25.4 percent, while
the rest of the improvements are within the 0-75' setback area and will increase the hardcover in
this area by 42.84 square feet.
Bottenberg stated the 1980 Comprehensive Plan contains a number of general land use and
environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land alteration would be
consistent. Without the retaining walls, erosion or freezing would be a problem. The City Engineer
has not reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint because the
Applicants are not adding but merely replacing existing retaining walls. A wall higher than four feet
must be engineered and approved by the City's engineer and Building Official. Bottenberg stated
since these walls are not four feet or higher, review and approval by the City Engineer is not
necessary. The Applicants will be required to submit detailed plans prior to issuance of a building
permit.
City Staff recommends approval of the variances.
Thomas stated this residence was originally constructed in 1929, with the previous owners doing
extensive remodeling of the house. Thomas indicated he would now like to do a number of
improvements to repair the existing retaining walls and will not be adding anything new to the
property.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Bellows commended the Applicant for submitting very detailed plans showing the work to be
undertaken. Bellows stated in her view the work proposed is reasonable and she does not have a
problem with the application.
Mabusth stated she is familiar with the property and the improvements are definitely needed due to
the deterioration of the retaining walls and steps.
Bellows moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2648, Peter and
Nicole Thomas, 1385 Orono Lane, granting of a variance for land alterations within 75 feet
of the shoreline, a hardcover variance, and a conditional use permit for land alteration to
permit the repair of several retaining walls and steps on the property, per the recommendations
of City Staff contained in the Planner's Report dated January 12, 2001.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#10) #2649 CHARLES LEEKLEY, 1525 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD,VARIANCES,
9:39 p.m.—9:54 p.m.
Charles Leekley, Applicant, was present, along with Marie Wendt, Trustee.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to replace a one stall detached garage with a
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2649 Charles Leekley, Continued)
20' by 22' two stall garage located five feet off the front property line and five feet off the side
property line. The existing building is 3.5 feet off the front property line and two feet from the
side lot line.
Weinberger stated construction of the garage would require the building to be located along the front
property line due to the property beginning to slope towards the lake. Long Lake Boulevard is
located approximately ten feet above the ground elevation of the house. If a garage were located
attached or near the house, a driveway with slopes at or near 15 percent would be required, along
with extensive grading and installation of a retaining wall system. Normally the City suggests
driveway slopes not exceed eight to ten percent slope.
Weinberger indicated another factor in determining the location of the garage is the well located
on the property. State Building Code requires structures or any part of the structure to be located
at least three feet from a well. The well and slope of the land have restricted any garage construction
to the area where the existing garage stands. One outdoor parking space is currently located north of
the existing garage. This space is partially off the property into the right-of-way. The space may also
encroach slightly onto an adjacent property. The outdoor space would be eliminated if a new two
stalled structure is built.
Weinberger stated the building would be a two-level building with the lowest level access being
located towards the house below the hillside. The lowest level is to provide indoor storage on the
property. A small shed would be required to be removed to accommodate the larger building,
resulting in a loss of storage on the property.
Weinberger indicated the property will not exceed the 25 percent allowed hardcover in the
75-250' lakeshore setback. The total hardcover would be approximately 1,850 square feet or
21 percent.
Weinberger stated Long Lake Boulevard is not a through street and does not carry heavy
traffic. Weinberger stating backing up into the street is not a concern due to the minimal traffic.
City Staff is recommending approval of the setback variances with the condition that the garage
is constructed in accordance with the survey and plans contained in the January 8, 2001 Planner's
Report.
Leekley stated due to the small lots, a number of other garages in the neighborhood are located
in front of the principal residence. Leekley inquired whether it would be permissible to relocate
the proposed garage slightly, which will result in the garage being located right next to the
property line.
Bellows stated she has a concern the structure will be located too close to the well if rotated
somewhat.
Weinberger stated he would prefer the garage not be located any closer than five feet to the side
and front setbacks.
Kluth indicated the Planning Commission is not in a position to design plans for the Applicants and
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2649 Charles Leekley, Continued)
that they need to act on what is being presented before them tonight. Kluth stated if the Applicant
wished to look at his other options,the Planning Commission could table the matter for a month.
Wendt indicated she would like to proceed forward.
Leekley indicated he would also like to proceed forward with the proposed plan.
Mabusch moved, Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application #2649,
Charles Leekley, 1525 Long Lake Boulevard, granting of variances to the front and side
property setbacks to allow the construction of a two level, two stall garage.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#11) #2650 KRISTEN AND PATRICK BURTON, 2601 RAINEY ROAD, VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,9:55 p.m.— 10:22 p.m.
Dick Peterson, Attorney-at-Law, Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, and Bill Huntres, Architect,
were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have filed a conditional use permit application to permit a
guest house. The lot consists of 13.8 acres, with 5.25 acres that is considered dry buildable land.
The lot currently is vacant. The Applicants are requesting to build the guest house prior to beginning
construction of the principal residence. Upon completion of the guest house, construction of the
primary residence would begin. Both residences are considered dwelling units, with the guest house
potentially serving as a principal residence.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission did review this application a couple of months ago,
with the City Council approving construction of the driveway. The Applicants have obtained a
MCWD permit which allows them to access the property and to fill in a wetland area on the site.
The driveway arrangements and the grading have already been approved by the City and the
Watershed District at this point.
Weinberger stated the land furthest to the east is where the guest house would be constructed.
Staff does not have an issue with the guest house since it would be considered a dwelling unit
and could be used as a principal residence should the other residence not be constructed. The
City currently allows guest houses as a conditional use permit. A condition of approval would
be that the property owner file a restrictive covenant on the property that states the guest house will
only be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary
residence on the property. That covenant would be recorded on the chain of title of the property
should the conditional use permit be approved.
Weinberger stated the two proposed residences do meet all the required setbacks for properties
in the two acre district and setbacks to the septic areas.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#2650 Kristen and Patrick Burton, Continued)
Weinberger stated technically a variance is required for the guest house because Orono's Code
states that the maximum building height for structures is two and a half stories or 30 feet in
height. The building would require a variance for height because part of the house is three full
stories. One-half story would be the portion of living space within a gabled roof. Because the
architectural style has a flat roof, it leaves a full three story house 30 feet in height.
Weinberger stated a second variance is required for a 30 inch high railing that would be located above
the roof line. The railing would be placed on the roof for safety purposes. A variance is required
because the railing is considered part of the structure over 30 feet in height.
Weinberger stated as it relates to the primary residence,the proposed chimney is for a total of
six feet in height where two feet would be allowed. The Building/Fire Code requires chimneys
to be two feet higher than any portion of the house within 10 feet. The added four feet of height
requires the conditional use permit.
City Staff is recommending approval of the application. Weinberger noted the septic design work
would need to be approved by the septic inspector prior to a building permit being issued.
Kluth inquired whether any of the parties had anything to add to Staffs report.
Peterson stated he is satisfied with Staff's report, noting Weinberger did an excellent job presenting
his application.
Gaffron commented from the plans presented it appears the residence meets the 30 foot side yard
setback.
Baldwin stated the long building has been rotated somewhat in a more north/south direction and
50 feet to the north to improve the neighbor's view.
Dave Daniels, 710 Gander Road, stated he is opposition to this project. Daniels stated there
has already been constructed two significant roads into each one of the building sites as well as
some site preparations. Daniels questioned whether the property owner was getting ahead of the
permit process.
Kluth stated Orono codes do allow guest houses to be constructed on a resident's property if
it exceeds a certain acreage.
Bellows inquired why the property owner would like to construct a guest house.
Baldwin stated the property owner would like to move into the guest house while the construction
of the principal residence is ongoing. Baldwin stated the guest house will be used as the primary
residence for a short period of time while construction is ongoing.
Peterson stated they will be constructing the guest house first.
Bellows noted the guest house does qualify as a principal residence so in her view there is not a
problem with the guest house being constructed first. Bellows stated the issue relating to height
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2650 Kristen and Patrick Burton, Continued)
has to do with the capabilities of the fire equipment available and that the spirit of the height
ordinance is not being violated in her view even though a portion of the structure will be three stories.
Bellows stated the height restriction has been adopted by the City for safety reasons.
Kluth commented another reason for the height restriction is to limit the amount of massing done
on a particular property and the impact it has on the neighbor's view.
Bellows noted this area is somewhat isolated.
Mrs. Daniels stated in her view this property is not isolated and you will be able to readily see
the structure.
Mabusth agreed that the Daniels will be the ones most impacted by this project.
Kluth inquired whether the parties present could comment on the need for the height variance.
Peterson stated the railing on the roof will be added for safety reasons.
Bellows noted only a portion of the house will be three stories. Bellows stated Orono has a large
number of residences that are two and a half stories tall, with the rear of the homes visually
appearing as four stories.
Weinberger stated the application does meet all the Building requirements.
Bellows moved, Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2650,
Kirsten and Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road, granting of a conditional use permit to
construct a guest house. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Bellows moved, Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval for Application#2650,
Kristen and Patrick Burton,2601 Rainey Road, granting of a height variance to allow
three stories and a height variance to allow a 30 inch high railing,with the understanding
the railing will be as transparent as possible. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 2,Kluth and Berg
Opposed.
Kluth indicated he voted in opposition to the motion because in his opinion the property owner
had built to the maximum with the hope that he would be granted a variance for hardcover in excess
of the limit.
Mabusth moved, Bellows seconded,to recommend approval on Application#2650,
Kirsten and Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road, granting of a conditional use permit to
to the chimney height. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 2,Kluth and Berg Opposed.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#13) #2652 RON LAUER,ON BEHALF OF DENNIS ANDERSON, 1720 BOHN'S
POINT ROAD,VARIANCES, 10:23 p.m.— 10:31 p.m.
Ron Lauer appeared on behalf of Dennis Anderson.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting approval to add a second story to the existing
residence, a concrete paver walkway, and to enlarge an outdoor stairway. The second story
addition is located in two different areas of the residence and does not cover the entire residence.
One section is 22' by 32' located on the south side over the master bedroom and the other is
22' by 34' on the northeast side over the guest suite.
A variance is required to hardcover in the 75-250' setback to allow 49.3 percent hardcover
where 48.7 percent exists, and a variance to the average lakeshore setback is required to permit
the addition to encroach 88 feet and 92 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The Applicant is
proposing to remove 393 square feet of hardcover consisting of landscape fabric under road. This
is considered to be nonconforming and should not be included in the hardcover calculations. The
amount of hardcover currently existing in this setback area is 48.7 percent.
Bottenberg stated the residence was constructed in the early 195Os in its present location prior
to current zoning ordinances. There have not been any additions or variances to this property.
The building official has reviewed the proposed plan and concluded that it does meet the
two and a half story or 30 foot criteria, measuring 29.E feet.
City Staff is recommending approval of the hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area if
hardcover is removed elsewhere in the setback area to maintain the current amount of 48.7 percent.
Bellows inquired what the height of the structure will be.
Bottenberg stated the building inspector has concluded it will be 29.5 feet.
Lauer stated he has attempted to minimize the amount of hardcover with this project, and is
agreeable to keeping the hardcover at the existing amount.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Mabusth moved, Bellows seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2652,
Ronald Lauer for Dennis Anderson, 1720 Bohn's Point Road, granting of a variance to
the average lakeshore setback,with the understanding the hardcover will remain at the
existing level of 48.7 percent in the 75-250' setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(#14) #2655 ROBERT AND NANCY LUX, 1209 FRENCH CREEK DRIVE, VARIANCES,
10:32 p.m.— 10:42 p.m.
Robert Lux, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting approval to construct a 13' by 36' addition to
the west end of the residence, and to replace an existing wood deck that is deteriorating. Both the
addition and the deck replacement are within 150 feet of a Natural Environment Lake, which
require a variance to structural setbacks. The property is located within 150 feet of the high
water level of French Creek.
Weinberger stated the lot was developed in 1985, prior to the adoption of the Shoreland
Ordinance, which established a 150 foot structure setback from Natural Environment lakes.
Prior to 1992, 75 feet was required. The subject property owner's house currently encroaches
into the required 150 foot setback.
Weinberger stated the current septic system is currently compliant and has a capacity for four
bedrooms. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms but rather will be
rearranging them within the residence and add a room off the master bedroom suite designated
as an office area. Therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time.
Weinberger noted structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application
and does not negatively impact the neighboring properties.
Weinberger stated the two variances for consideration tonight are to replace an existing deck
and also to place an addition onto the existing residence, which will be conditional upon the
drain field area being relocated on the property. Staff would recommend that the property comply
with all septic requirements before beginning the addition portion of the project.
City Staff is recommending approval of this application.
Bellows inquired whether this property has an alternate septic site available.
Weinberger stated there has been some testing completed, noting the lots in this area are small
and it is difficult to find another alternate site.
Bellows pointed out a minor discrepancy in the application. Bellows stated the Applicants are
requesting to replace an existing wood deck and add 13 feet onto the residence for accommodate
additional kids bedrooms.
Weinberger stated the plans do indicate the bedrooms are being relocated.
Lux stated there are three lower level bedrooms and he is looking to increase the size of the
existing bedroom and will not be adding any additional bedrooms. Lux stated he will be working
with Staff on determining the exact location of the drain field.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2655 Robert and Nancy Lux, Continued)
Bellows indicated the addition needs to be 20 feet away from the drain field.
Gaffron recommends approval be made contingent upon all septic field requirements being
complied with.
Lux stated he is comfortable with that condition.
Kluth moved, Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2655, Robert and
Nancy Lux, 1209 French Creek Drive, granting of a variance to the structural setback for
Natural Environmental Lakes to permit the replacement of an existing deck, with the
understanding the deck will not increase the hardcover in the 75-250' setback.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Kluth moved, Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2655, Robert and
Nancy Lux, 1209 French Creek Drive, granting of a variance to the structural setback for
Natural Environmental Lakes to permit the addition to the residence subject to Staff's
recommendations contained in the January 10, 2001 Planner's Report, and with the
understanding the property meets all septic requirements. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(Item No. 15 follows Item Nos. 16 and 17)
(#16) #2657 CLIFFORD OTTEN,2350 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, VACATION OF
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, 10:42 p.m.— 10:48 p.m.
Clifford Otten, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting the City to vacate a portion of the drainage and utility
easement granted along the perimeter of the Plat of East Willow Woods. This is to fulfill the
conditions of the road agreement executed by and between the City,the Applicant, and
Service 800 in February of 1999. The triangular piece of property known as Brimhall Triagnle
was acquired by Otten from the previous owners subject to conditions which gave the City and
Service 800 certain drainage, utility and road easements to make this a useful vehicular access
point for Service 800 and the adjacent properties in the future.
As part of the agreement,the City agreed to vacate the ten foot drainage and utility easements
in Otten's property adjacent to the triangle, in exchange for new easements along the new
Highway 12 right-of-way line. This application is in fulfillment of the City's obligation under
the agreement.
City Staff is recommending approval of the easement vacation, subject to the Applicant
granting the replacement easement as depicted in Exhibit B-3.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2657 Clifford Otten, Continued)
Often indicated he is in agreement with the easement vacation.
Kluth moved, Bellows seconded,to recommend approval of Application#2657,
Clifford Otten, 2350 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of an easement vacation subject to
the granting of a replacement easement as shown in Exhibit B-3 contained in the
January 11, 2001 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
(#17) #2653 CRAIG ALHOUSE,4100 WATERTOWN ROAD,SKETCH PLAN
REVIEW
Craig Alshouse, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a sketch plan review for a Class III subdivision
for the property located at 4100 Watertown Road. The property consists of approximately
37 acres of which approximately two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the
City Wetland Maps. The property is located in the RR-1A. One Family Rural Residential,
which has a five acre minimum lot size.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have two proposals to consider, with the primary
difference between the two proposals being the size of Lot 5. Because Lot 5 contains a large
barn and indoor riding arena,the second option would be to create a larger parcel of land to
create an individual lot with more pasture land. Proposal one is for a six lot standard plat and
proposal two is for a five lot standard plat.
City Staff has had several discussions with the Applicant about the future use of the property
as a community horse farm. Proposal number one would have a private road with access
directly off of Watertown Road serving the western four lots, Lots 1 through 4. Lot 5, which is
an existing developed site, would continue its access off of Watertown Road. The sixth lot
would have access off of Orono Orchard. Lot 6 has been legally combined with the property
in 1996,and does have an existing house on the property along with a guest house. The intent
as part of this particular application that the house and the other structures on the lot will be
removed.
Weinberger stated all of the lots meet the five acre standard, with the road arrangement into
the development well suited for this particular area. The surrounding area has been primarily
developed as residential, with a large wetland area to the north side. The primary issue for
consideration by the Planning Commission is the future use of two oversized accessory
buildings, a 10,000 square foot indoor riding arena and a horse barn approximately 4,000
square feet. Currently Orono's Ordinances only allow accessory buildings to have a maximum
of 3,000 square feet. The proposed development does change the character and use of these
accessory buildings.
Weinberger indicated in the discussions with the Applicant,they have attempted to review
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
(#2653 Craig Alshouse, Continued)
their options on how to best maintain the rural character of this area, maintain the accessory
buildings, and be compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Staff had discussed the
possibility of using the property as a community horse fann, which the Applicant has determined
would not be successful.
Alshouse stated he is interested in developing a development that will work well with the
site and the surrounding area. Alshouse stated the previous owner of the property purchased
it in 1971,and erected the 10,000 square foot arena at that time on seven acres of land for the
purpose of boarding horses. Presently there is a commercial license under a conditional use
permit for the purpose of boarding horses for the public. Alshouse commented there have been
a number of problems experienced with this operation such as parking along Watertown Road.
Alshouse stated the lot to the north was subsequently combined with the seven acre lot, with the
existing residence being rented out at this time.
Alshouse stated the goal of this project is to create five or six lots over the 36 acres in order to
help maintain the rural chracter of the area. An interior private road would be created on the
lower area to access this development, with some consideration being given to shortening the
length of the cul-de-sac. Alshouse stated they will be eliminating a number of the other
outbuildings on the property, and are contemplating clustering the residences towards the top of
the ridge. Alshouse stated in his opinion the development they are proposing is in keeping with
the character of the zoning ordinances and the neighborhood.
Berg inquired whether the developer prefers Option 1 or Option 2.
Alshouse stated he prefers Option 1 due to marketing. Alshouse stated if he goes with Option 2,
he would be forced to increase the price of the houses due to the smaller number of lots that would be
for sale.
Gaffron stated he likes the concept plan, but in his opinion the future use of the accessory
building should be limited.
Mabusth suggested the future owner of that lot be told the barn is non-conforming.
Bellows stated she prefers Option 2 over Option 1 because it prefers a little bit more of the
larger lot and provides more land for the indoor riding arena. Bellows stated the City needs to be
careful about preserving this area, but the City needs to be careful about placing too many
restrictions on the future use of the structure.
Alshouse stated he will be re-appearing before the Planning Commission in March with a preliminary
plat and that he is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on whether the
accessory buildings can remain and the basic layout of the development.
Kluth stated personally he does not see any major problems with the proposal.
Bellows stated the City may be limited in the type of restrictions it can place on this property and
the accessory building since it was originally constructed on a seven acre piece of land.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#15) #2656 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CITY OF ORONO,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 11:12 p.m.— 11:15 p.m.
Kluth stated it is his understanding the surface water management plan needs to be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council with the City's amended Comprehensive Plan. Kluth stated he would like to get
the input from the other members of the Planning Commission prior to the submission.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Gaffron stated this plan has been put together by the City Engineer's office. Gaffron stated the
Planning Commission may want to look at the capital improvement plan and the dollar figures
being proposed for the various items. Gaffron stated he would not have a problem if the Planning
Commission wishes to table this item for a month.
Kluth suggested that perhaps Gaffron contact the members prior to the next meeting to see whether
they have any changes they would like to see or comments they would like to make regarding the plan. .
Bellows moved, Kluth seconded,to table Application #2656, Surface Water Management Plan,
City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#18) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS NOVEMBER 27,2000 AND DECEMBER 11,2000
This item was not discussed due to the absence of the Planning Commission members who attended
the Council meetings.
(#19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
(#20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 20, 2000
This item was tabled by the Planning Commission.
(#21) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JANUARY 22,2001 AND FEBRUARY 12,2001
Kluth suggested City Staff contact the members of the Planning Commission to see who would be
able to attend the upcoming City Council meetings.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday,January 17, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m.
A- _ Ai
. /
Daniel Klutl' air 'erson
PAGE 31